tv [untitled] March 31, 2011 10:00am-10:30am PDT
>> the evening. welcome to the march 23 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. the presiding officer is president kendall goh. joining her is vice president michael garcia, commissioner frank fung, chris hwang, and tanya peterson. francesca will provide the board with needed legal address. to my right is the legal process clark. i'm the board executive director. we are joined today by representatives from some of the city departments who will have cases heard before the board of this evening. the zoning administrator is here. scott sanchez is also representing the planning department. joseph duffey is here, a senior building inspector. we're joined by john fong, representing the bureau of for use and mapping. jarvis murray is also
representing. i will go over the guidelines and conduct the swing-and the process. the board request that you turn off all speakers and pagers so they do not proceed -- disturb the proceedings. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the role of presentation is as follows, the apartment respondents have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within those periods. members of the public not affiliated have up to three minutes each to address the board. please begin to the end of the microphone. to assist the board in the actor preparation of minutes, you are asked to submit a speaker car business card to staff when you come up to speak. cards are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments. there are customer satisfaction
survey forms for your convenience. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing or schedules, speak to a -- speak to board's staff during the break or after the meeting. this meeting is broadcast on sfgtv, a cable channel 78, and broadcast on friday starting at 4:00 on channel 26. now, i will swear in all those who intend to testify tonight. if you intend to testify, please stand, raise your right hand, and say "i do" after you have been sworn in. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? thank you. we will move on to item number one, which is general public
comment. is there any member of the public who wishes to speak on an item not on the agenda? please step forward. there is no such person. item number two. commissioner comments and questions. commissioners? item number three, the adoption of minutes. commissioners, before you is the adoption of the meeting minutes of march 16, 2011. >> comments, commissioner? somebody want to move the adoption of the minutes? >> move the adoption. >> there is a motion. is there any public comment on the minutes? i will call that motion to adopt the minutes as written. president goh: aye. commissioner garcia: aye.
commissioner peterson: aye. commissioner hwang: aye. >> the motion carried. item number 4a, subject property at 218 turk street. we received a letter from shaughn morgan requesting rehearing of appeal number 10- 073, decided january 19, 2011. the board voted 2-3 to uphold. four votes being required to overturn department collection, the permit was upheld by operation of law. the project is to remodel baff coming heating, upgrade electrical, partition walls, replace ceiling tile in grid, all work at commercial unit, vacant locksmith to pharmacy. please note that the public hearing was held in closed on march 9, and the matter was
continued to allow the absent board member to participate in the boat. commissioners, the permit holder in this case has again provided a court reporter for the transcription of the proceeding. we do need a motion for that purpose. the permit holder indicated it will provide a copy to the board and to the appellant free of card -- charge. president goh: so moved. >> on that motion by the president to designate the transcript of the official record, is there any public comment? i will call the roll. commissioner fung: aye. commissioner garcia: aye. commissioner peterson: aye. commissioner hwang: aye. >> the transcript is designated as the official record. commissioners, at the march 9 hearing, motion was made to
grant the rehearing request. the vote at that time was 3-1-1 with garcia dissenting and commissioner peterson absent. we can move right back into deliberation. commissioner peterson, the floor's yours. commissioner peterson: thank you. i had the pleasure of watching the hearing on sfgtv on march 9, 2011, and i appreciate the supervisor coming to this room, as well as members of the public, particularly persuaded by president goh's timeline. in the matter before us, the request for a rehearing, i do think there will be manifest if both sides are not represented. i think it is only just that we
provide both sides. it is a complex legal argument, and i know that the permit holder was made clear to us. it deserves a robust legal response. i would vote to grant the rehearing. >> ok. deputy city attorney, we do not need to entertain public comment, since that was done at the last hearing? >> correct. >> ok. we had a motion, then, do we need to call the roll again on that? >> the motion did not -- i believe it did not specify the terms of the rehearing. the briefing, schedule, so i cannot remember who the motion- maker was. commissioner hwang: i think we
can set it for a time that is acceptable to both sides. as far as briefing, i treat this as a brand new hearing. >> commissioners, i would suggest that we have this matter falls under the current rules, when it was first filed, it was under the prior set of rules, which had a different creeping schedule. -- different schedule. i recommend it fall under the current set of rules. we should select a hearing date. commissioners? >> do you want to ask the parties what their availability is? >> sure. >> we will need dates, won't we? >> april 20 is the next full board. >> yes. >> are the parties available on
april 20? >> is that for the hearing or the briefing? >> they hearing. >> that would be fine. so it is april 20. >> yes. >> if the hearing is on april 20, then the appellant's brief would be due on the 31st of march, and the permit holder's brief would be due on the 14th of april. again, we have the specificity of that motion. we have had a vote on it. i just want to confirm with the deputy city attorney that we are done.
>> i am fine just recalling the vote. >> the motion was made by commissioner hwang to hold the rehearing on april 20 and to apply the current board rules to this new appeal. on that motion, commissioner -- >> just to clarify, for the rehearing. commissioner fung: aye. president goh: aye. commissioner garcia: aye. commissioner peterson: aye. >> the motion carries 5-0. thank you. >> commissioners, i was just
advised that item number 7 has been settled. if we could take one moment, i can find out from the party's if that means it will be withdrawn from calendar. >> we have a settlement in principle. we have to work out the details. we should probably continue it. we just discussed this in just now. >> so, president goh, maybe we can call this item out of order so it can be continued? president goh: yes. >> do you have a date in mind, a gentleman -- gentlemen? >> when is the next hearing? >> april 6. the next is april 20. >> i would rather april 20. >> a 11-002, richard arvin
appealing the revocation of taxicab medallion number 997. it is continue to allow the parties to discuss settlement and propose alternate penalties. we have a request by the parties to continue this until april 20. >> yes. >> is very motion? >> so moved. >> is there any public comment? commissioner fung: aye. commissioner garcia: aye. commissioner peterson: aye. commissioner hwang: aye. >> the matter will be continued to april 20. >> we will move on to item 4b, a jurisdiction request, subject property at 415 oxford street.
the board received a letter asking that the board take jurisdiction over bpa number 2010/02/12/6512s. the request was she received at the board office on february 2, 2011. the permit holder is bill chan. the project is a vertical and horizontal addition, remove illegal unit and ground floor, and full bath and exercise room at groundball, interior remodel, new roof deck at second floor, at new third floor. public hearing was held on march 9, 2011, and the matter was continued to allow time for the parties to discuss settlement. commissioners, would you like to ask the parties if they have reached a settlement? how would you like to proceed? president goh: i would like to hear from the parties. are they here? ok.
>> how about a yes or no response? have you reached a settlement? >> no. my name is james o'neill. >> we held the hearing and closed the hearing. i am going to allow two minutes to tell us about the settlement negotiations. >> that was the request for's agent? >> yes. >> during the settlement negotiations -- >> could you speak into the microphone, sir? >> during the settlement negotiations, the project sponsors offered to build a box on the second floor deck. what it would essentially do is come in 36 inches from the deck side that shares the wall with
my client. they have offered that as a tool for mitigating the privacy issue. that is the extent of the settlement. my client rejected that as insufficient. the deck abuts her second story bedroom window. >> before you walk away, what was done about the issue, having access to the building to do maintenance work in those types of things? >> the original concerns were the maintenance of the -- at the site of the house. of originally, she understood there be a set back the entire length of the house on the ground level of about 5 feet. that would not be the case. it would go from the front of the house to the light well.
on the second floor, what the project sponsors requested is a rear yard extension of about 8 feet for a storage unit. on the second floor that, they're building a deck. that will be right next to, 24 inches away from, ms. chan's but bedroom window and provide visual access to the third story bedroom window. she is concerned that because it is so close, it will provide, and this is in the excelsior district, there will be the ability to crawl in the second floor window. >> we are down to just that issue? accessibility to the side of her house? >> that is the primary issue, yes. >> does it have to do with safety because of access to her property and privacy? >> exactly. >> thank you.
>> the permit holder? please step forward. please state your name. >> this is the second meeting between the owners -- the neighbors and the apartment holders. i spoke to commissioners already. the second one, we talked about the deck. at the back is this deck. we were talking about the privacy issue for this window, which is higher than the deck. from the floor plan, you can see the deck actually is further back.
whoever stands on the deck needs to stand on the edge of the deck and turned back to see that window. that is why we talked about setting be set back, so whoever who -- whoever is on the deck cannot see it from the deck. that is what we are trying to address the concern from the neighbors. it looks like the neighbor is still not really finding that acceptable. we're going to change the window and the door in the back of the bacdeck. we're going to cover the window. it will reach this door, right at the door. >> just so i'm clear, can you put that overhead back up?
can you put the drawing back up? so, as i understand from the requestor's agent, the proposed settlement would have allowed for -- i would like to cd overhead and not my face on this thing. the distance from the edge of the deck would be 3 feet? is that what was proposed and rejected? >> we would put a solid storage box there so nobody can really stand in that area. >> the deck would still be there. you would put a box on top of it. >> this area is going to be solid. nobody can really stand there. >> a fixture storage box? ok.
thank you. >> we should call for public comment. is there any public comment on this item? commissioners? commissioner fung: the issues that were brought up today were not remotely brought up at the jurisdiction pose a request. the only thing brought up there was the issue of maintenance. i thought, given that as the particular issue, there might have been a relatively quick potential settlement. the deal with this, we would have to find that, because the appellant purchased it at a time when there might have been a gap in the notice, and i am not 100%
sure that there was, that therefore she would deserve the granting of the hearing, especially on an issue that would have come up in the 3/11 process and potentially could have been a dr request to the planning commission. i am not sure -- at this point, i am not sure whether i would find that there is sufficient cause for jurisdiction. >> i should put on the record that i, too, previewed this hearing on the sfgtv.
this is really just a jurisdiction request. what i have heard today, it does not persuade me to grant jurisdiction again. i have some sympathy for the requestor, but -- >> it is ticklish because it seems as though come in a sense, the privacy issue, though it did not come up in the jurisdiction request, the original reason for that request was a that3/11 had not been received -- was that 3/11 had not been received. the appellant, or the requestor, did not go through the process. i'm inclined not to grant jurisdiction. i wish there was some way we could codify what seems to be an arrangement that would prevent
someone from standing on that deck and looking toward the window. all that is left to us to do is to hope that we are dealing with someone who is honorable, and we have no reason to think he is anything but honorable, and will do just what he said here. as for jurisdiction request, i would be inclined, with the others who have already commented, to not grant jurisdiction. >> i don't have anything to add. commissioner hwang: the timing of the notice and the change of ownership makes for a sympathetic set of circumstances. for that reason, i would be inclined to grant the request for jurisdiction. but, i will probably be shot down here.
commissioner fung: i would make a last comment that there was a time period of about a month in which the appellant could have and did not. i think that is what is going to sway me. >> is their emotion, commissioners? commissioner fung: i move to not grant jurisdiction. >> on that motion to deny the jurisdiction request -- commissioner garcia: aye. commissioner peterson: aye. commissioner hwang: no. 4 >> -2 -- >> 4-2. >> 4-1. >> correct. my apologies. item five, appeal number 11-011, dean preston, appellant, verses the department of building inspection. thises and 401 divisadero
street. protesting the issuance on january 10, 2011, to john brennan, a permit to alter rebuilding, a chase bank, includes window and brick wainscoting modifications, revised floor heights, revised entry and structural -- -- revisions for door and atm openings. public hearing was held in closed on march 16, 2011, and the matter was continued to allow absent board member to participate in the vote. commissioners, at that hearing, a motion was made by vice president garcia to grant the appeal and condition the permit so would be revised to reflect the plans contained in addendum number two from january 27, 2011, provided this does not cause the square footage to exceed 3999 square feet. the vote was 3-1-1 with hwang
dissenting. >> i will jump in. i do wish mr. duffy were here. i have a question for him about the square footage better -- measurements. i did watch the video, the streaming video, and thesf gov tv version over the last several days. i applaud the commissioners and the members of the public who sat through it live and also applaud the council for the two sides. i thought the arguments were very interesting and well done. the chase argument, the list of uses in the district, and financial-services are listed in that category, i understand that argument. appellant argued that the
category of retail sales and services includes financial services and points to planning code 711, providing a zoning table that provides a list of what our "retail sales and services." that list include 711.49, which are financial services, and that specifically references 790.110, describing banking services. if the appellant is correct in their argument, it falls on 703.3, which calls out retail sales and services in the thenc2 district. i found that argument
persuasive. let me back up and say this. where there are ambiguities in the code, we as a qualified- judicial body needs to look at the reasons for the regulation. as outlined, there were many reasons. many of them apply to this situation. there are offices outside of san francisco. the outfit has standardized architecture, color schemes, and signed. the notion that in allowing these corporate places, the mix of business would be skewed toward national retailers. the competitive advantage would change.